Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leavi...
Income Tax : This article explains why reassessment proceedings may be invalid if the Assessing Officer merely relies on Investigation Wing rep...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Humble Representation for modification of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act relating to Sanction for issue of Notice under sec. 14...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 reopening for AY 2013-14, holding Section 43CA was inapplicable and stamp duty valuation alone could...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune quashed a Section 148 notice based on vague information and directed deletion of a ₹51.35 lakh addition for lack of su...
Income Tax : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent's entire sale proceeds could not be tre...
Income Tax : The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassess...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Explore the latest guidelines for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand key procedures, amendme...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
Bombay High Court invalidates reopening notice and assessment order against Jayant Avinash Dave, citing procedural lapses and unreasonable decision-making.
ITAT Chennai held that cash collected from customers for purchase of stamp papers were deposited in bank hence source of cash deposits duly explained. Thus, addition towards unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Chennai held that estimation of 8% as income on the total receipt by AO is justifiable since assessee failed to substantiate its claim of earning 5% commission on total receipt. Accordingly, addition confirmed and appeal dismissed.
Bombay High Court upholds reassessment in a tax case, citing new evidence of undisclosed income and unverified transactions, allowing further challenges in appeal.
Guwahati HC examines violations in Section 148A orders for income tax assessments, directing re-evaluation due to procedural lapses.
ITAT Pune remands the case of Prakash Dipchand Kapadnis, instructing NFAC to reconsider the addition of gross receipts instead of net income for AY 2013-14.
ITAT Allahabad remands ₹45.4 lakh unexplained cash deposit case, citing lack of evidence and claims of fraud. Assessee given a fresh chance to present facts.
In the case abovementioned ITAT have held that there is no need to purchase residential property in own name by any assesseee for the purpose of claim of capital gain u/s 54F.
A prior approval was sought to pass the order u/s 148A(d) from the Specified Authority, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and after receiving the prior approval from the specified authority, an order u/s 148A(d) was passed.
Despite there was a valid disclosure made by assessee and AO being duly apprised of the factum of merger, AO made the draft assessment order in the name of a party which no longer existed on that date.
